If your team won..

[Universe]

...with the New York Yankees style of buying now that the cap is gone, would you still feel it was as deserved as a none cap year?

[Big Penny]

nope. the NFL needs to do something about this, and bring back a salary cap ASAP

[Teletopez]

Yes, because using the example of the Yankees:

 

1) A lot of the money is coming from revenue (that means the team's FO has been smart in making wise moves and keeping the fanbase happy overall, along with having a dedicated fanbase). The team has taken full advantage and has chosen not to pocket any revenue. The team, while receiving a lot of revenue, is also losing a lot to the revenue sharing plan, so that teams who don't benefit so much aren't thrown into a huge hole.

 

2) A lot of the big-time salaries are long-term, so the team will have a limited budget in future offseasons. They won't be able to sign a couple superstars every year.

 

On another note, signing players to big contracts and winning it all is a lot easier in football, in my opinion. When you're on the field, it's possible for other players to make your job easier and put less pressure on you. In baseball, if you're name is C.C. Sabathia, you're making around 20 starts a year in New York City, with the expectations of going 7 innings strong every game, and you're not getting so much help with it. But that's not a discussion of whether it's deserved, but rather whether there should be a salary cap in the NFL.

[Universe]

Yes, because using the example of the Yankees:

 

1) A lot of the money is coming from revenue (that means the team's FO has been smart in making wise moves and keeping the fanbase happy overall, along with having a dedicated fanbase). The team has taken full advantage and has chosen not to pocket any revenue. The team, while receiving a lot of revenue, is also losing a lot to the revenue sharing plan, so that teams who don't benefit so much aren't thrown into a huge hole.

 

2) A lot of the big-time salaries are long-term, so the team will have a limited budget in future offseasons. They won't be able to sign a couple superstars every year.

 

On another note, signing players to big contracts and winning it all is a lot easier in football, in my opinion. When you're on the field, it's possible for other players to make your job easier and put less pressure on you. In baseball, if you're name is C.C. Sabathia, you're making around 20 starts a year in New York City, with the expectations of going 7 innings strong every game, and you're not getting so much help with it. But that's not a discussion of whether it's deserved, but rather whether there should be a salary cap in the NFL.

But can you compare a 2009 Superbowl team to a 2010 Superbowl team if they've paid triple the salary?

[Teletopez]

But can you compare a 2009 Superbowl team to a 2010 Superbowl team if they've paid triple the salary?

Well think of it as a new era. It's not just the Superbowl team that takes a big jump. 32 teams are given the opportunity to rise, and it's a fight to see which team made the most of what they were given. You can't necessarily compare a 2010 NBA team to a '60s club, simply due to the fact that there's a difference in talent between the two times. Similar idea here.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Waldo

[CaliCurbStomppa]

I thought it only for one year tho?

[reno]

Yes, cause stricly buying players through free agency does not make a team good, look at the redskins the past few years. Owners pushed for a no cap not to spend more, but to actually spend less on player salaries. There is no league minimum anymore for players. High profile owners such as Jerry Jones was pushing for a no cap just for this reason, cowboy stadium is up to debt and Jerry wants to spend less on the team to get some of the money back. The nfl did not have a salary cap till 1994, does that mean any of the previous sb teams did not deserve it? With no salary cap, your going to see a far less exciting free agency. Many of the teams will be able to retain their star players, so you will either see bigger trades, or teams building through the draft. NFL is not like baseball.

[Teletopez]

I thought it only for one year tho?

Yes, but the moves in the one year will still have an effect on the next few years, won't it?

[Universe]

Well think of it as a new era. It's not just the Superbowl team that takes a big jump. 32 teams are given the opportunity to rise, and it's a fight to see which team made the most of what they were given. You can't necessarily compare a 2010 NBA team to a '60s club, simply due to the fact that there's a difference in talent between the two times. Similar idea here.

But not all teams can spend as high as others.

[Teletopez]

But not all teams can spend as high as others.

Isn't that the case in all sports, though? And most of the time, benefiting from revenue is what makes the difference in amount spent, and I'm fine with that.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Waldo

[Universe]

Isn't that the case in all sports, though? And most of the time, benefiting from revenue is what makes the difference in amount spent, and I'm fine with that.

But that's what I mean between a championship with a cap and one without. Add that to who the owner of a team is as well.

[fly3rs18]

Well think of it as a new era. It's not just the Superbowl team that takes a big jump. 32 teams are given the opportunity to rise, and it's a fight to see which team made the most of what they were given. You can't necessarily compare a 2010 NBA team to a '60s club, simply due to the fact that there's a difference in talent between the two times. Similar idea here.

 

i totally disagree. it doesnt just change eras in one year, you cant think of it as a 1960's team to a 2000's team.

 

but the thing is that 32 teams arent given an opportunity. a team like the detroit lions or similar team does not have the same chance to sign free agents, which gets fans, as a team like the cowboys. its the same thing in baseball with the yankees or red sox compared to the royals or marlins. this is why i think there should be a salary cap in baseball as well as a salary cap in football. it just isnt fair, no matter how much you try to tell yourself that it is ok and deserved. its not

[Guru]

i totally disagree. it doesnt just change eras in one year, you cant think of it as a 1960's team to a 2000's team.

 

but the thing is that 32 teams arent given an opportunity. a team like the detroit lions or similar team does not have the same chance to sign free agents, which gets fans, as a team like the cowboys. its the same thing in baseball with the yankees or red sox compared to the royals or marlins. this is why i think there should be a salary cap in baseball as well as a salary cap in football. it just isnt fair, no matter how much you try to tell yourself that it is ok and deserved. its not

Life's not "fair". If a team has more money than another team they should be allowed to spend it without a limit. At the end of the day the NFL and the MLB are just two businesses trying to make money.

[Teletopez]

i totally disagree. it doesnt just change eras in one year, you cant think of it as a 1960's team to a 2000's team.

Okay, maybe not "era." Maybe a better comparison is the change from 14 to 16 NFL regular season games.

 

but the thing is that 32 teams arent given an opportunity. a team like the detroit lions or similar team does not have the same chance to sign free agents, which gets fans, as a team like the cowboys. its the same thing in baseball with the yankees or red sox compared to the royals or marlins. this is why i think there should be a salary cap in baseball as well as a salary cap in football. it just isnt fair, no matter how much you try to tell yourself that it is ok and deserved. its not

There are way too many factors that play a role in lack of fairness. Yes, the Lions don't have the same chance as the Cowboys, but that's the case even with a salary cap.